france and the ratio of support for israel was even more one-sided than a was in the united states. the united state is still a great deal of support and around the world it is completely. i asked myself the question what it was when i brought about this dramatic change. i can't think of any case in history and a complete change of its political regime. a research subject is that jacob is a reversal in the way the outside world regarded that. and as i studied it, i thought of our learned about certain things. first, obvious things. israel's triumph in the 1967 war

and felt changed many things. for one thing, israel again was never too seen as threat does it did on the eve of the war when the war would make arab armies were mobilized on his porters and the rulers were declaring quite plainly. tension to eliminate israel want and for all. israel after that seemed not so vulnerable and strong. but they're also i think more subtle processes that took place. one was the death appeared. it then. to that moment, the leading figure in the arab world was president nasser of egypt and the leading idea was the idea she was the great exponent of and that was pan arab is on. if you look back, the plo was

founded in 1964 at the behest of nasser. and it is not the palestine liberation organization because it was not formed within a thought of creating an independent palestine. the point was simply to liberate palestine from the jews so could it become part of this state that nasser espoused. if you look at the palestinian national charter, which was adopted in 1964, it makes no mention of a palestinian state or sovereignty for the palestinians. it is all about the palestinians as part of the arab nation. but the defeat of the arabs in 1967 was so devastating and so

humiliating that it destroyed the prestige and what is, destruction of the prestige also destroyed the idea of arabism and not in turn cleared the field to the emergence of palestinian nationalism. palestinian nationalism had been advocated by a few palestinians. among them, nasser arafat and some of his friends were mostly working in kuwait and now is their own headquarters and not formed thoughts and 90 years after 1967, they moved into the plo and took it over and we saw the emergence of palestinian nationalism and appellate tinian claim to sovereignty and independence as an issue in the conflict for the first time. so instead of having to manage

of the arabs against little israel, it became now little but strong israel against tiny and weak palestine. instead of the issue being israel because israel also now was an occupation of territories for several million palestinian arabs lived. instead of it being a question of people who are trying to deny a state of their own, it now became the question of the jews or israelis trying to deny another people a state of their own. that is the palestinians. so this gave the whole conflict to a different look. but this is still not a sufficient explanation of the

hostility against israel today because it may be that the world came to care about occupation or about palestinian national aspirations. but this is in itself requires explanation because no one cares about other occupation. who got exercised about the occupation of tibet? part of our long-standing and brutal than the occupation of the palestinians. in terms of the national aspirations of the palestinians, who chant and the national aspirations of the kurds was national aspirations are more powerfully rooted unjustifiable in every dimension that most of the palestinians.

that is the kurds are a much larger people about five or six times as many as palestinian. they have their own culture and language history. they have no other country. they have no country of their own. but no one, sadly no one gives a fig. so the question of national expiration and occupation really can't begin to explain the international mood or attitude. this, by the way, has manifested in other ink system fees. in fact, inconsistency is right in the demonization of israel that we see around us. for example, the reddish teacher unions have voted for academic boycott of israeli universities.

at the same union have never voted for or proposed, to my knowledge, even discussed or debated academic boycott of countries in which there is no academic freedom and b., no unions of teachers or anyone else. but that passes unnoticed. we have seen recently that the price. church has voted to divest holdings from companies involved with israel. but has never voted to to divest from companies that are called with countries that deny religious freedom in persecute christians? there is woefully inconsistent fee. and also, what i think goes hand-in-hand with this if there seems to be actually no serious interest in the fact that this case is decided before the fact.

it struck me when the boats to report this issue about the last significant war in gaza. the very next morning, karel built, the foreign minister of sweden and at that moment, sweden held the chairmanship of the president be of the e.u. the very next morning on behalf of the e.u., karel built endorsed. have you ever seen that? but goldstein reported 500 pages long but very small type. they had not read the quote to report before the date of first issued in the morning had worsened in the name of politburo. he hadn't read a summary of it. he wasn't going to read it. he didn't care what was in the report. the point is that it condemned

israel and therefore automatically attached to be embraced and endorsed. msb right. because israel is somehow inherently lovely. israel is by definition a bad guy and never mind with the facts. the question is how do we get to that situation? at it this is the result of two different kinds of forces that have been at work over these 40 years. on the other hand, material pressures that were brought to bear and on the other hand, intellectual changes that have altered the equation with regard to the middle east company. that material pressures i think first about the use of terrorism, which was carried out by a thin european soil in terms of hijacking throughout the 1970s vintage in fact terrorize the europeans and so

they came into a mode of complete appeasement of terrorists. there is account made some 200 or perpetrators of hijackings and bombings, who threw the account were captured and detained an out of band, 201 were more or less instantaneously released for fear that their comrades britcom make life uncomfortable. also the moderate arabs were terrorize. and so, you can look in the memoirs of abu eon was arafat made deputy and he was a french author wrote in a war available in english. in his memoirs, he boasts about

the arab summit meeting in the 274 in morocco, which declared the plo from distillate amid jeanette and he said we secured this vote because we created his words around the meeting. so the arab leaders were afraid to go in. on top of the intimidation of the yom kippur war in 1973. these two things combined really brought europe to japan to their needs and european leaders spoke openly of the need to change their orientation on the middle east conflict because of their dependence on arab oil. the next year, secretary of state kissinger took in mind the

idea that the western countries would have to find some mechanisms to free themselves from the threat of future oil embargoes, to find some countervailing pressure that they could bring to bear. so he made a tour of european capitals in 1974 to try to rally the europeans to join us in some kind of measures to raise this. he wrote in his memoirs by this terrible frustration. i quote, every minister was still terrified of possible confrontation with the oil producers, close quote. so this was a complete failure because the european ministers preferred to appease rather than to resist. the third part of what i'd hoped

to gather as the material pressures brought to bear and the sheer weight of numbers. for every jews in the world, there's 22 member states of the arab league, 57 member states of the organization of islamic cooperation. and it is a fact of life or of human nature that most people see in a conflict between the many and if you find it more comfortable to take sides with the many. only the very brave will join with a few. that's also a practical consequence because it of course translates into diplomatic pressure, economic power. it also has enabled the urge to take over the u.n.

so as the u.n. coming of the security council, whether the united states has a veto is not really a problem. but every other u.n. body is by majority rule and those are all dominated by the so-called nonaligned movement whose 120 members make up about two thirds of the u.n. and about half of the movement is made up of the islamic countries, the members of the organization of islamic cooperation and the 22 member states of the arab league said that makes telescoping leverage of which they had their way and not on the way, but turned the u.n. into a, an instrument. the general assembly which has any issue in the world has an

immense proportion of its time every year passing resolution after resolution did not in israel. it's very rarely passes in a resolution. it does occasionally, but of all the resolutions passed at the generally assembly, three quarters, all the resolutions that mention a particular country, three quarters has been devoted to the denigration of israel. one quarter to any misdeeds by any of the other 194 countries in the world. ..

a was a transformation that happen on the intellectual level. this was not engineered by the arabs or the palestinians, but they played a part in it and they been able to take advantage of it to turn around how the world treats this conflict. and that is this intellectual transformation takes a form of a change in paradigm, in the main ideas of leftism or progressivism. for about a century, the core idea of leftist progressive thought was class struggle, the poor against the rich, the workers against -- this was

portrayed not just as a matter of justice, all things being equal doubt, but it was portrayed as a redemptive historic struggle that would make the whole world a better and happier place. sometime in the letter -- the latter part of the 20th century about 100 years, this paradigm, this image of how the world was going to be made right began to lose its force. and it came to be replaced by another kind of morality play of struggle, and this was national and ethnic struggle that grew out of the movements against colonialism, but that didn't end with colonialism. colonialism died but anti-colonialism did not. it became anti-neo-colonialism. and in this field, instead of

the class struggle we got -- instead of workers against capitalists, we got the west against the west. it came also to be overlaid with the images of the heroic civil rights struggle that went on in the united states, the most-watched country in the world, and so all of this came to be woven together into one ball of? that also in addition to being called the west against the west is often called the people of color against the white man. this, too, is not just a matter of writing a wrong, or justice, but came to be seen as a redemptive struggle that would make the whole world a better and happier place. as i said this was not something that was -- this intellectual transition was not purposefully invented by advocates of the arab side or by israel's

enemies. but they were able to dig a trench of it. and someone who came to be the leading symbol of this new paradigm was, in fact, the most prominent palestinian american i think that there has ever been, and that was efforts i.e. of -- edward saeed of columbia university whose work and in particular the book orientalism became immensely influential. the newspaper, the guardian wrote that ie was the most influential -- that saeed was the most influential of our time. most syllabi these days are online. so you can search them probably. so did a search and found that

there are 900 courses in american universities in which said's books are assigned. there are courses at universities like georgetown and ucla entirely devoted to the front of edward said. and there's even a cambridge introduction to the thought of edward said. edward said's thought, i can do in a nutshell, a mostly complete intellectual fraud. it's not just something i disagree with. it is something that has no legitimate intellectual standing whatsoever, if the world were to look at it with clear eyes. why do i say something that drastic? said's thought -- it boils down

to the idea that you can see it is self-contradictory, the idea that all white people are inherently racist. he didn't say exactly those words but he said the same thing. i'll give you a quote. he said every european companies had europeans also in the book he also said, what he said about europeans also applied to americans. every european in what he could say about the orient was a racist, an imperialist and almost a totally ethnocentric. and said what about in his most important book proving this broad thesis by allegedly examining the work of scholarly orientalists, meaning essentially people who study the muslim world. and he purported to show that they were all racists and imperialists. but what he really does was just to go out in the universe of the writings of 19th century

european intellectuals and look for racist quotes. and then he strung them together in this book and said, here's a quote and here's a quote, if these people were all orientalists. the problem was that some of the people said quoted were not orientalists at all. he of course found a and then he gave them a new label, purporting that the study some that hadn't study. you call them orientalists with a little standing in the field. some of them have the one quote within contrary quote that he left out, but he left out entirely people who were genuine giants in the field of oriental studies whose writings clearly went in the opposite direction of what said was purporting to prove about the racist entry list addict is a westerns who studied the orient.

so arguably the most important or one of the most important of these figures was a hungarian jew who wrote in the late 1800s and who is regarded by many as having been really the granddaddy of muslim and arab studies in the west. and those were left out of trenches studies lived in the air countries. and, of course, opa study another region of the world, he loved it. that is normally happens, if you know, if you're in academia, you know, people specialize in latin american studies, chinese studies, whatever it may be. their normal mindset is to form a great affection for the place and the people you study. and that was true, contrary to said, for orientalists, too.

this capitalizes his attitude. remember, he was a jew and he wrote, i discovered that islam was the only religion which can satisfy little soft minds. my ideal was to elevate judaism to a similar rational level. that's the real orientalists as opposed to said's figures which you are you sure have been assigned to read at american universities. and so trendy is kind of emblematic of this whole intellectual process that i've discussed. and despite this kind of fraud, his writing was so in tune that he became this most celebrated and revered and designed figure

as the embodiment of this new intellectual paradigm i described. what he did was he made the people of color the new chosen people, the new people whose liberation would redeem mankind to be made the oriental into the ultimate example of the people of color. the muslims into the representative orientals, and the arabs into the central or core muslims. and, finally, the palestinians into the ultimate quintessential arabs. and by this chain of reasoning, abracadabra, israel was

transformed because it was in conflict with the palestinians. it was transformed from being seen as a redemptive rescue of the people from thousands of years of persecution, but through the very embodiment of white supremacy and oppression. and i think in that transformation lies the explanation for the question i ask myself that morning when i read about the story of how could people possibly believe such a thing. thank you very much for listening, and i'd be happy to take questions or comments. [applause] >> thank you, joshua. i'd like to ask the first question, and after i do i'll open it up to the audience. i ask you to ask real questions. pretty concise so that everybody gets a chance, and also to identify yourself.

we will get some microphones around. wait until the microphone comes to you. that answer my question, joshua, ideas have consequences. as richard weaver wrote, it strikes me that one of the ideas that it has had increasing consequences throughout the middle east, this paradigm shift as you mentioned between pan-arab nationalism, secular, often secular socialist nationalism, and a new revolutionary islamist extremist revolutionary doctrine. and as represented by hamas which is an arm of the muslim brotherhood which is putting into effect the ideas of former muslim brotherhood theorists who borrowed many ideas of a vanguard party and a ceaseless struggle from communist thought,

and apply these in islamic -- islamist context. along with the breakdown of the peace process has made harder to imagine a compromise on a national basis between israel and palestine. if the conflict is increasingly defined in religious terms and the hamas or whatever collection of leaders on the other side sees themselves as acting to advance the concept of gods interest, then the compromise itself becomes blasphemy and it becomes increasingly hard to see any kind of negotiated settlement to this thing. and that, taken with, you know, some of the war crimes that have been perpetuated as hamas has

taken palestinians hostage and hides amongst civilians to launch rockets at civilians, in the long term could discredit that cause in the eyes of many non-muslims. so do you see any impact on israel's image coming out of succession of what looks to outsiders as self-defeating armed attempts to kill civilians with very little gain to the average palestinian in the street? do you think over time that will make westerners, particularly europeans, look differently at israel? >> thank you. it's a deep question, jim, but i always hate questions what i have to speculative about the future. i would much rather speculate about the past. i think that the islamists have

gained a lot of steam sense, i think it was the iranian revolution that really, even though it was shed and most muslims are sunnis and there's a lot of tension between them, but i think it was the iranian revolution, the creation of the first islamic republic that really gave a tremendous shot in the arm to islamism, and over the decades, the last 35 years, we have seen that that has been on the rise. but it is also getting some backlash as you're suggesting and some poor -- some horror at the things they're doing. one hopes that that will spread to the west. the interesting thing is that that reaction against islamism

is, i think to this point, most evident, or at this moment in this current gaza crisis, most evident in the arab world where i think a lot of people are quite unhappy with the islamists. by far the largest majority of their victims, people died at the hands have not been jews or christians, but muslims. think what you will about the takeover i general sisi in egypt, but before the army moved, there were millions of egyptians who took to the streets against the muslim brotherhood group. and i think in this current war in gaza, where we're getting not only, these to talk about tv wars, but, of course, as something new, that that's

already something old. this is, internet, twitter, social media war, and we're getting all these terrible images of innocent civilians in gaza were getting killed and bombed out of their homes, and children among the victims. and yet there really hasn't been the kind of rage in the arab world against israel that we've seen at other moments when there have been these conflicts. of course, most people in the arab world will feel identity with the arab side of the fight, but there hasn't been that fury that we've seen on other occasions. and i attribute that to the fact that a lot of people in the arab world are getting sick of the

islamists. and i think they do understand that hamas started this round of fighting. whether westerners will catch up with the arabs on this score i think remains an unknown. >> okay. let me open it up to questions at this point. this man right here, and then the two men behind him. >> ratings. my name is jeffrey, i'm a u.s. army veteran, i'm a national security consultant. i wanted to thank the speaker for extending us the courtesy. i want to revisit in what seems in part defines the outlets of the lecture, and i am of course talking about the kind of scope of your research which seemed to

look at the impact of strategic information and influence operations implement by u.s. and israeli adversaries, the goals of which would be to attempt unfairly so to delegitimize israel. i wanted to know if in your research you can across any evidence that illustrates empirically the organizational operational ties between assets of influence by soviet support for the cold war and waiting or unwitting assets of contemporary u.s. and israeli adversaries? >> will i don't know that i have found the good you're looking for, the kind of hard evidence of institutions or individuals who did x, y or z. but the broader picture, you

don't need to have special information or intelligence, which is the soviet union is gone now, but for at least its last 20 years of life, it worked very much in this field of trying to transform world sentiment against israel. and that was because there's one aspect of the 1967 war that i left out of my presentation, in order to keep it short, although it was probably too long anyway, but to keep it from getting longer. and that was one other interesting effect was the issue of lightning victory in 196 to seven was a tremendous humiliation to the soviet union as well as the nasser. the soviets had pushed that were. they agitated the egyptian or the syrians. the arab armies were armed with

soviet weapons. it was seen as to some security they cold war proxy war, one side that allied with the west and the other side allied with the soviet camp. and, therefore, it was a tremendous humiliation to the soviets. it showed their side was losing. their weapons were as good as western weapons. and it had a very powerful effect inside the soviet empire. photo one thing -- so for one thing it ignited the consciousness of jews within the soviet union itself, who numbered several million, who had, have not had any kind of freedom or religion or other cultural activities. many of them just had an awareness of a heritage that they would use but hadn't lived

any kind of jewish life, either religiously or culturally. but they felt this identity and they felt it 100 times more strongly when israel defeated, little israel defeated these big soviet client states. so we got the movement within the ussr of soviet jews for the right to emigrate for the first time in his should of communism that there was some kind of semi-mass movement for rights and against the regime. until the dead only been an individual dissident here or there. so that was momentous. it also had an effect in the empire that is in the so-called satellite countries, where people who are not jews but who are under the soviet boot felt hopeless about it, suddenly had hope. if israel to defeat the soviet clients in the middle east, well, this monolith that we're up against is not invulnerable,

not invincible. so it did have -- it sent a shudder through soviet leaders, as a result of that was that they mobilized and didn't stop until they were gone. a campaign of denigration of israel and zionism. they played a big role in the u.n., in the profound thing the zionism is racism resolution. and there was certainly a powerful connection, and it was all so a connection -- you may think of as more nuts and bolts. that is, in these early years after they moved into the plo, took over and the palestinian cause was kind of consecrated, then they quite consciously

apprenticed themselves to the north vietnamese and the vietcong, and other comments revolutionary forces around the world who said we can show you how to defeat them militarily superior enemy, and you don't do it on the battlefield. you do it through politics and information or disinformation. and that was an enormous transformation, because until that point in the arab world, the arabs had been allied with the axis in world war ii. there were german nazis escaped criminals in egypt churning out propaganda. that's where some of kill the jews, drive the jews into the sea came from. some of it was homegrown but some of those helped and encouraged by these former

nazis. after 67, the arabs figured out this really isn't working. so the arab cause was repositioned from right to left all at once. so that's not exactly the detail your looking for, but that's as much as i can add to the subje subject. >> actual presentation as always. given the really false, pernicious falsehood, images that have targeted israel's that you describe in your book, what is it that israel and its supporters in the west due to counter them? >> well, i wrote a book. i think israel itself has not

been great at at pr, they call information, or telling their story. i don't know why, but there are so many things that they have been pretty poor at this. i also the sense they don't try very hard. i think there's a certain cynicism in israel that the world reasons as anyway, so why bother, right? i know sometimes in my role as a researcher trying to get information from israeli sources that will counteract some anti-israel story that is out there that i suspect is false, and i can never get it. so i think there's a problem on the israeli side. and on thi on the side, on the american, the western side, for people who support israel, who

want to see it survive and flourish, i think, for one thing, we have to not be intimidated. and increasingly there's actual critical intimidation going on, on university campuses has been a common thing for a few years. now we've seen a little bit of it in the streets, boston, los angeles, in the last weeks, and, of course, even more in paris, european places. it's important not to be intimidated, but it's also important not to be intimidated intellectually. and that is, if i'm right in my analysis, part of what israel is up against is that it's up against sort of the dominant

progressive interpretation of the current stage of world history, which is this stage of the struggle of the rest against the west. then it is intellectually intimidating to go against because you don't want to be a neanderthal. you don't want to be a racist. you don't want to be someone who is unsympathetic to the claims of people who have been oppressed or discriminated against in the past. and you should not be unsympathetic to those claims, but you should only be sympathetic to them to the extent that they are just, and that they don't entail some new adjustment. people just have to have the

intellectual courage to stand up and argue for what they feel is right, even if it goes against zeitgeist, even if it goes against what they -- a proper way of thinking but all upright and moral people. >> this woman in the back. >> i'm from frontpage magazine. i appreciate you coming today. i enjoyed your presentation, but i couldn't help but notice that you omitted any mention of anti-semitism that has plagued the jews throughout this century, and that has been scapegoated throughout all of history. certainly hamas charter says expressly that he wants to eliminate the jews, not by diplomatic means, not by violence, and the unholy alliance between leftists and islamists. also, i might as well add, also

the inherent anti-semitism as well as anti-christian phobia and all that, some interpretation of islam, and certainly in hamas. >> i didn't talk about anybody -- anti-semitism at it don't talk about it perhaps and cleansing were in the book because while i'm sure it's a factor in hostility to israel, the question that i was trying to answer is what has changed so dramatically over 40 years? ..

but however much anti-semitism there is in the world, we have an era from the weight 40s to the late 50s. i took six-day war is the epitome of that. you would think when there wasn't a war, but popular culture, the novel, exodus, published in the 1950s was the best-selling novel in the united state scott with the wind and then it would want to be translated and became a bestseller in many other countries. it didn't seem to me that anti-semitism was a good explanatory word for how we got from those days today.

one other semitism i thought about, one of the many problems in the scenario we talk about in the overall argument, which is a set about this one, while tamir showed first published the paper and then they look. i thought it was all quite nasty. when i read it, i thought it's just really reeks of anti-semitism. but in the paper that preceded the book and right at the beginning they said we may be called anti-semites ,-com,-com ma but far from it. not only are we not anti-semites, we are phyllo semite. and then people read what they wrote and any number of critics had your anti-semites.

and they said no we aren't in the critic said yes to live. no were not. at that point it seems to me the argument goes nowhere. i feel it's hard for me to prove that someone that was an anti-amite, but it's not at all hard for me to prove that with someone is saying about israel is false, unfair, unbalanced, just a note rather keep the argument on that plane and to give myself embroiled in trying to improve what is someone's heart or mind. >> we have time for one more question. will you be signing books afterwards? >> of people buy books, i will sign them. >> that sounds good. this lady appeared. >> hi. my name is barbara gallo. my question is when you look at

the conflict in you assign lame or look at the blame because you have to identify the problems in order to work two solutions, would you say the islamic site has 100% of the blame in israel has aero or would she make it like 9010? in other words, are there other things israel can do to maybe work off of those solutions? >> let me say two things in response to that. one is in terms of faith and it is less important to assign blame and to think about how the conflict could be ended into how she only words that are formulas that are involving concessions

on both sides here i don't have much to be for sound and israel who seem to take the position that will just have everything we want in on how this problem will go away. i don't think that is at all reasonable. in assigning blame, it becomes trickier. i am not in israeli and they don't share the risks that israelis are experienced enough this moment and that they live

with every day. i share to impose on myself a rule of great modesty and taking positions on what israel ought to do. but if i were an israeli, i would be on the more softline rather than hard-line side of the spectrum that is among those who do accept that there should be a two state solution and i think a lot of the settlement building is foolish and is a nuisance and in the end, if there is ever any, it seems to be not at all certain, but if there is, it will have to

involve dismantling of some settlement of consolidation. so i'm not done i am not in blanket accord with every thing done by israelis is done by israel. it also doesn't mean a very meaningful exercise to say this one did that iraq and that one did that thing wrong. there's a basic cause of this conflict and that is not an 100 details. it is in one big idea in the basic cause of the conflict is that the area initially would not ask that you assume of any

sovereign jewish state in the mid-of any size and with a name orders and over the decades, even generations, some of them now do, including some of the palestinian good but i think whereas there is a very clear majority in israel for a settlement were two state solution for the creation of a palestinian state is part of a peace agreement. among the palestinian, there is not and never has been a consensus that says okay, we will go for use faith as a permanent solution. i will expect israel is there forever and we are there forever and will live side a side in a project in relationship. there certainly are a sips anselmo versus demand to do believe that.

but there's another substantial info. this most recent poll was taken in may, sponsored by the washington team institute for policy by palestinian poll organization and it found that twice as many palace in the end agreed with the proposition that we want the conflict to go on and so we all of palestine and chose the option that said we would like it to his day solution so that we can go on building our own while our neighbors build a road. not that poll is actually worse numbers that have appeared in similar polls in other years. sometimes it is a more 50/50.

there has to be a concern to us on the palestinians by. it doesn't have to be 100%. there has to be a consensus that they will go for a permanent peace. it also means policing if there's a palestinian state, you can't allow it to be a base for attacks on neighboring state. i think rather than look for blame on the tip romantic french on the settlement elting friends, the essential question is who wants peace and who wants tightening. and on that question, it pretty is pretty clear that the blame is today as it has been at this

conflict began on one side. >> well, thank you. with that, can i ask members of the audience to join in thanking joshua. i'm sure in muravchik. he will be outside at the table if you want to buy books and i think we also have sandwiches. in the nature you. thank you. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> welcome to both tv special that for some of the places our producers have visited in 2014 as we continue to explore the unique history of literary culture of america. [inaudible conversations] with the help of our cable partners, for the next hour we will take you across the country from day one, oregon to st. louis, to mobile, alabama.

we begin in utah where we toured 25th street with author sal halley. >> twenty-fifth street is south is actually not that unusual. similar streets have popped up in other cities whether beaumont, texas, held half-acre, for verse, larimer and denver. but what makes auditing 26 street somewhat unique is that it arose right middle dumars settlement. you have the mormon peoples party which was struggling to retain control of the city. on the other hand, you have the railroad, which was the economic lifeblood of the city, which was buried in a non-harming and so the railroad, which was the economic lifeblood was also leveling the playing field. so you have the irony in that context, the guilty pleasures on 25th street records to be just as little more taboo than they might have been another cities.

initially, after the river came, a number of hotels sprang up. the odd depot and initially the railroad, city council did not want to serve alcohol. he said alcohol would do oilers railroad workers. well, that didn't last too long. the city needed the money. so within a year after the railroad can come in the city of layson and then after that he began to glow began to flow like the ogden river. at the same time, three blocks east for 25th street intersects with the main street in austin, there was another hotel called the white house. the white house was initially run by an itinerant shoe thinks

i'm an amber. he was an import when he arrived in austin, but later he became the governor of utah. so what the hotels and restaurants. the depot and the hotel three blocks east of here, the three blocks between them began to fill in slowly with boarding houses, rooming houses and so learned in her bellows and even some opium dens. it just so happens that people who came through here, transcontinental passengers were interested in past times that were quite different is that one culture was accustomed to. they are often not for 15 years to 1934 to 1949. it was during those years at 25th street wild reputation reached its highest point.

harman. believed that licenses in the user the best way to regulate vicious establishment such as gambling halls. he also believed 25th street allowed for a repeat of two enjoy the same kind of recognition as members of private clubs. so you get morrissette during his time than any other time in history. for a lot of notorious people in 25th street in the 20th century, the most famous of all had to be rose db and her husband bill. cruise tv, among other things, ran the rose room. the rose rooms are behind us on the second floor of the building behind us here. it is not the hottest place in austin. build devi had assumed gambling joint called the chief club on

the opposite side of the street, second floor of the building were lucky slice pizza is. rose db leased the building had for a year she is a normal rooming house. and then at the beginning of 1948 there's no evidence for this, but i think she thought not that hard renteria sac in office, may be a bordello would stand a chance. so she decided to start importing women in their. the rose firm's first lays of public consciousness on may 1, 1948. the weaker wildlife to nation was holding a annual party and the livestock coliseum and three surfers were hired as the grand finale. there is passing around aspects with the rosaries local on them

and the names were written ending from the matchbooks. well, the crowd became so unruly that they started throwing bottles on stage and the police rushed and arrested not the bottle throwers, but the structures. this is the time the group had ever heard of them and a few days after that they rated the rose rooms and arrested rose db not for prostitution, but distribution of narcotics. were standing out front of a couple buildings associated with the most famous madam. the one i stand directly in front of us called the london ice cream pollard now. this one was called davenport saloon, still referred to that. bill lended didn't refer to these, but she was famous for keeping her office here. the thing that is most visually interest in nowadays is this ss